From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8C5FD3858D1E; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 17:08:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8C5FD3858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1704042518; bh=E2xvrLGi48lPqLKBhu6tn745azpB4gnFVi/iJJgr8+U=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TaoVtn3k5co1WSWRAhJa1xCKQXy9r1SPHV/OGI8OW4bS0yzcCR/reu9abm9ucsARl tcv8XYI94IkXKZysCuw/b+t7HpdJjxsKAfgdn+3wJQ2ISIA4OuRdOk5B7KWjZRPybs hnLiRdmhBuZStZCnBp88nNn2dZCjNQ0DvNF/UN08= From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 17:08:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113175 Xi Ruoyao changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3) > There's one single regression event, bringing the host runtime to about 1= .63 > seconds. Then some time later, an additional 0.1 second was added > (accumulated). > I did not look into that latter regression. The big one is clouded by a > large range of commits where max_size_type failed, due to > r14-159-g03cebd304955a6. > This was fixed in r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2, at which time there the big > regression is seen for the first time. That is also the "cause" for the > commit, because applying that commit to r14-158-g7d115e01411156 shows the > same number as for r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2. >=20 > Actually, it's the testsuite part of that patch, because with that revert= ed > the execution time backs down to 0.33 seconds. IOW, this while PR is > /testsuites. Not sure what to do to improve the execution time, as plain > disabling the using "signed_rep_t =3D __int128;" by making the first line > "+#if 0 && __SIZEOF_INT128__" yields > /x/testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc:36: note: the comparison > reduces to '(16 =3D=3D 8)'=20 >=20 > Maybe the higher number for the execution time is actually the "right" one > and the range should be cut down to -100..100 for *all* targets? >=20 > HNY! IIRC the "signed_rep_t =3D __int128;" case has really detected a compiler b= ug, so IMO we shouldn't just disable it. Maybe my memory is flawed though.=